Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
kerry just looks ridiculous when he spends the whole front half of the debate stressing his international diplomacy bona fides and the need for international effort in order for him to flush a toilet, yet advocates bilateral talks with NK. to say that you're going to reach a favorable and lasting outcome with NK while simultaneously cutting japan, china, s. korea etc from the table is just plain nuts.
|
I'm not clear why bilateral talks with NK is so suprising or untenable to you - or as you put it "nuts" - it had been used effectively by Clinton. It was not used by Bush. And where are we? NK has nukes now.
As for your claim that it is a Kerry weakness - I believe I addressed that: the weakness you point to, that Kerry otherwise advocates coalition approaches to diplomac is also the opposite of what Bush has otherwise proposed. The simple reality is that NK is a unique situation - you know it, Kerry knows and Bush knows it. You can't argue that Kerry is changing positions on this issue without also admitting that Bush changes position on this issue.
But the fact remains: China is not an ally of the U.S. So to hinge NK negotiations on China is simply ineffective. If China were a true ally, this would all be different - but that is not the world we live in.
Quote:
|
making sure china is at the table is not tantamount to leaving our security up to them. not sure why that would even be suggested...
|
I was simply referring to the conservative attack on Kerry where he is blamed for wanting to let France decide American policy - the same applies here for Bush. In both cases it is less-than weak. But it is exactly the same - except of course that China is not even an ally.